Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Rodney Mitchell, 4th Cir. (2012)
United States v. Rodney Mitchell, 4th Cir. (2012)
No. 12-4424
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:11-cr-00286-JRS-2)
Submitted:
Decided:
December 7, 2012
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Mitchell was convicted by a jury of conspiracy
to tamper with a witness, 18 U.S.C. 1512 (2006), and sentenced
to
97
months
imprisonment.
He
appeals,
claiming:
(1)
the
We affirm.
Mitchell was one of six people arrested after a raid
dropped.
Shortly after his release, Dugger encountered Mitchell
and
Darrell
Harris
outside
local
nightclub.
According
to
Duggers
Upon
learning
life
had
been
from
confidential
threatened,
law
informant
enforcement
that
agents
Dugger.
After
investigators
Dugger
told
obtained
which
he
them
of
the
recordings
of
telephone
discussed
nightclub
encounter,
made
to
Dugger
not
to
intimidating
calls
Mitchell
in
testify.
one
month
before
Mitchells
trial
was
Included in these
recordings
approximately
ten
business
Counsel obtained
days
before
trial,
Counsel
finding
that
counsel
had
ample
time
to
compile
trial,
the
jury
heard
recording
of
two
phone
heard
and
recorded
defendants
conversations
brother
between
Christopher
Mitchell
Harris,
in
which
his
co-
Mitchell,
Approximately three
weeks later, Mitchell filed, pro se, a motion for a new trial,
asserting
that
counsel
had
failed
to
obtain
and
present
city
jail.
After
an
evidentiary
hearing
at
which
Mitchell
insistence
justifiable
request
upon
for
assistance of counsel.
expeditiousness
delay
violates
in
the
the
face
right
to
of
the
896
F.2d
815,
824
(4th
Cir.
United States v.
1990).
Even
if
the
Id.
by
Mitchell
about
the
recordings
one
month
later.
five
days
of
attempting
to
review
them,
sought
United
To receive
heavily
against
it.
Smith,
451
F.3d
upon
by
at
216-17.
the
because
of
the
evidence
Duggers
nightclub
Mitchell
phone
relied
calls
encounter
knew
of
the
concluded,
the
evidence
from
was
jail
not
recordings
Mitchell
almost
newly
(and
month
discovered
they
were
impeachment,
plain
and
that the jury would have reached the same result even had they
heard the recordings at issue.
Accordingly,
we
affirm.
We
dispense
with
oral